As the church expanded into the Greek and Roman
world Christianity was quickly transformed from a Jewish-centered religion into
a Grecianized and anti-cosmic religion. Of course the Bible takes a very
positive view of the natural (physical) world, at least in regard to both its
origin and its future. God declared his creation to be “good” (Gen. 1:31). The
Old Testament is clearly pro-cosmic, in that it views the natural world
as created for and suited to the fulfillment of the eternal promises and
purposes of God for man. The New Testament does not differ from this view,
though it does acknowledge the need for redemption and restoration of the
physical world in order to completely ameliorate the effects of sin and the
curse brought upon the earth because of sin. Both the gospels and the book of
Revelation picture Christ as returning to the earth to establish his eternal
kingdom and to rule, and Revelation describes the heavenly city as descending
to rest eternally upon the restored earth (Rev. 21:1-4). Unfortunately, some
have failed to make a distinction between the material world and the powers
that presently influence the world. According to the New Testament, the world
is now under the sway—and to some degree, the dominion—of the powers of
darkness (Rom. 8:18-23). Christ’s atoning sacrifice has already provided the
basis for the defeat of these powers and for the redemption of believing men
and women, and of the material creation itself, but that redemption has yet to
be applied to the physical creation; according to the Bible, it will be applied
when Christ returns (Rom. 8:18-25). Hence, while the world system is evil, the
natural realm itself is not intrinsically evil; rather, it suffers the effects
of man’s sin. While the Bible recognizes that the present state of life in this
world is made difficult by the presence of sin, that state is viewed as a
temporary condition. The simple truth is that the Bible nowhere promotes an
anti-cosmic worldview.
Owing to the influence of Platonism and Gnosticism in the
early centuries of the church between the 2nd and 5th
centuries, the gospel was reshaped according to the anti-cosmic belief that the
material creation is inherently flawed and thus cannot be made suitable for any
ideal purpose. This shift in worldview profoundly impacted every area of
theology, especially the doctrines concerning the nature of God, Christ,
original sin and salvation, and the nature of the unfolding kingdom of God (eschatology);
also it directly or indirectly gave rise to virtually all of the great
theological disputes of the first four centuries of the church. While the early
church eventually resolved most of the difficulties with respect to the nature
of God, and original sin and salvation, eschatology fell victim to anti-cosmic
dualism. The interplay between Christianity, Platonism, Stoicism, Gnosticism,
and the early doctrinal deviations from the first century apostolic faith are
difficult to unravel. However, there can be no doubt that Platonism and
Gnosticism in their various forms had a significant and lasting effect on
Christian theology—principally, the effect of displacing revealed religion
(disclosed by God to man) with philosophy (reasoned from man to man), particularly
as it relates to our understanding of the kingdom of God. Examples of the
displacement of biblical revelation by philosophy can be seen in such figures
as Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
eventually, Augustine (though these figures had sharp theological disagreements
among themselves). Augustine, owing to his stature in church history, is
responsible for codifying in the western church the practice of “spiritualized”
(allegorical) interpretation of eschatological prophecy, with the aim being to
provide biblical support for the view that the kingdom of God is essentially
spiritual (i.e., supernatural as opposed to physical) and
church-centered rather than Jewish-centered. [The replacement of Israel by the
church was an essential stepping-stone in the development of amillennialism.
This scheme is generally referred to as “replacement theology.” Replacement
theology developed very early and can be seen in the in the writings of Justin
Martyr (see note below) in the mid-second century—even though Justin’s position
on the kingdom remained solidly premillennial.]
The background of “Christian” anti-cosmic worldviews
in the early church
Gnosticism derived its cosmology and ontology from
Platonism, and both Platonism and Gnosticism viewed the material world as
intrinsically flawed. As such, both Platonists and Gnostics conceived of the
world as a place to be delivered from (through contemplation for the Platonist,
and by the keys of gnosis for the Gnostic); neither worldview could
conceive of the physical realm as a suitable medium for anything “ideal” (such
as the kingdom of God). So, for both Platonists and Gnostics (and increasingly
for others whom they influenced), the notion of a literal, physical kingdom of
God on earth seemed quite absurd. In practical terms, any anti-cosmic worldview
is inherently incompatible with premillennialism; which is why Gnosticism, in
bloc, and eventually most of the remainder of the church, which had
increasingly fallen under the influence of Platonism, came to deny the literal
premillennial statements of the Bible. [For further discussion of the biblical
basis of premillennialism see, “The Biblical Basis of Premillennialism,”
or What the Bible Says about the Future, by the author. For information
on obtaining materials by the author, see the note at the end of this
monograph.] This must have posed somewhat of a dilemma in the earliest stages,
since the biblical statements, taken at face value, unequivocally teach a
premillennial return of Christ and subsequent physical (geopolitical) kingdom
(Zech 14; Matt. 24-25; Rev. 19:11-20:4). However, with the increasing
acceptance of allegorical interpretation, it became easier to deny
premillennialism and to readjust the message of the Bible through the use of
allegorization. The Gnostics used allegorization in developing their particular
cultic theology, and those who debated them (Clement, Origen, and others)
increasingly relied on philosophical apologetics, which often led to further
allegorization of Scripture such that both positions moved further away from
the actual statements of the Bible and closer to philosophizing, allegory, and
myth. While premillennialism can be found in some of the church fathers, the
displacement of premillennialism by amillennialism was early, beginning in
earnest in the early second century. [Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho (chapters LXXX-LXXXI) provides an excellent example of premillennialism
in the early to mid-second century—though Justin had come to accept replacement
theology, which is a precursory step in the direction of amillennialism (see
chapters CXIX-CXX and CXXXV). As such, Justin’s
theology is an example of the transition that took place in the early second
century from biblical premillennialism, to replacement premillennialism, to
replacement amillennialism (classic amillennialism).]
Since Gnosticism is less well
understood than Platonism, it might be helpful to review some of its basic
tenets. Early Gnosticism was, essentially, an adaptation of Platonic
metaphysics (cosmology and ontology) that integrated the dualism of Platonism
with Christian themes (primarily, transcendence and salvation). Unlike
Platonism, Gnosticism accepted the Jewish/Christian conception of a transcendent
God. Thus while Gnosticism shared much of Platonism’s mythical cosmology and
dualism, it represents a significant religious/Christian adaptation of those
ideas. [While there has been much discussion on the origin of Gnosticism, and
whether there was a pre-Christian form of Gnosticism, the earliest Gnostic
teachings appear to draw heavily on Old and New Testament characters, places,
events, and ideas, and thus would be difficult to explain apart from
Christianity. On this point see: A Separate God: The Origins and
Teachings of Gnosticism, by Simone Pétrement.]
The determinative feature of Gnosticism is the belief that the God of
the Old Testament (Yahweh, or “Jehovah”) is not the true (holy and eternal)
God, but rather a creature (a powerful, angelic-like being), whom the Gnostics
referred to generically as the “Demiurge,” or personally by the names
“Ialtabaoth,” or “Sakla[s]”). The Gnostics reasoned that since the world is
flawed, the true God could not have created it. They also viewed the “God” of
the Old Testament as inferior in character to the Father of Christ in the New
Testament. We see in this the earliest examples of the reinterpretation
(largely a dismissal) of the Old Testament in light of what was thought (by the
Gnostics) to be a later, superior understanding of truth—a process that, quite
interestingly, remains as one of the core hermeneutical processes of
amillennialism today—that is, the tendency to conform older scriptures to a
particularly narrow view of later scriptures. For example, see A Case for
Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, by Kim Riddlebarger (written
from the amillennial perspective), which provides a convenient compendium of
contemporary amillennial thought. Riddlebarger states (p. 37): “…the Old
Testament prophets and writers spoke of the glories of the coming messianic age
in terms of their own premessianic age. They referred to the nation of Israel,
the temple, the Davidic throne, and so on. These all reflect the language,
history, and experience of the people to whom these promises were originally
given. But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where
we are told that these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the
glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. According to
amillenarians, this means that Jesus Christ is the true Israel.” As incredible
as it might sound, Riddlebarger acknowledges (p. 51) that reformed
theologians are “concerned about the dispensational tendency to interpret the
New Testament in light of the Old….” What a novelty these dispensationalists
(read: premillennialists) are guilty of—actually attempting to interpret the
New Testament in light of the Old Testament! Amillennialists are forced to
reinterpret the Old Testament in light of their particularly narrow view of the
New Testament gospels, and they look with concern upon anyone who might
actually attempt to understand the New Testament in the light of the Old
Testament. This is, of course, a biblical theology turned upside-down; and it
is a process that appears to have gotten much of its initial traction from the
philosophical/theological “soup” of the second century A.D. in which Gnosticism
developed.
Whether Gnosticism produced this inversion in biblical theology or was
simply a co-inheritor is unclear; but one thing is clear: reversal of the
determinative/dependant relationship between the Old and New Testaments, as
seen in Gnosticism and amillennialism, is highly destructive both to biblical
theology and to our notion of biblical inspiration and canonicity. After all,
the basis for the acceptance of the New Testament books as inspired documents
was that they teach (at face value) the same doctrines as the Old Testament—but
how can that be if the Old Testament must be allegorized to conform to the
teachings of the New Testament? (For additional discussion of the
determinative/dependent relationship between the Old and New Testaments see, “How
the Amillennial Conception of the Kingdom is Developed,” by the author.)
The Gnostics believed that the true God is higher and
unknown to the God of the Jews—who in his ignorance of the true God believes
himself to be the highest of powers and worthy of all worship. For the most
part it seems that the Gnostics viewed Yahweh not as evil, but as acting ignorantly
(though some sects of Gnostics undoubtedly did view him as having malevolent
tendencies). Perhaps the Gnostics arrived at this worldview through a rejection
of original sin. That is, in failing to understand, or accept the Old Testament
account of the fall of man and its effects upon the world, they thus attributed
the failure in creation to the Creator himself. The skids of this error were
already greased by the fact that the Gnostics saw what they thought was a
disparity between the New Testament ideal of the Father of Christ, and what
appeared to them to be the inferior Deity of the Old Testament. Therefore, they
felt justified in rejecting the theology of the Old Testament. Whatever the
impetuous for the origin of Gnosticism might be, it is clear that Platonism was
the template for the Gnostic worldview, and it is generally acknowledged that
the Gnostic ideas regarding creation were largely adapted from Plato’s mythical
account in Timaeus. The Gnostics developed an elaborate mythology to
elucidate and support their views. They were forced to do so because their
doctrines simply could not be supported through any normal understanding of the
Bible. Hence, the Gnostics were among the first within professed Christianity
to “spiritualize” (allegorize) the Christian Scriptures, and they eventually
developed their own corpus of cultic literature to support their beliefs. They
engaged in the wholesale allegorization of the New Testament, and to the extent
that they used the Old Testament (which was little), they allegorized that too.
(Since the Gnostics viewed the Old Testament as representing the religion of
the Demiurge—i.e., a false religion—they mostly ignored it, except for
the creation account, a few details of which they adapted to their mythical
cosmology.) [For those who may be less familiar with Gnosticism, documents like
The Gospel of Thomas that are currently being popularized in modern
religious fiction, such as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, are for
the most part, Gnostic writings that were rejected by the early church because
their historical and theological content is incompatible with the Bible. In
every case, these writings are pseudepigraphal—that is, they were not written
by the people whose names they bear, or at the time claimed. They were simply
forgeries written from the second century on, fabricated to support a Gnostic
worldview which could not be supported directly from the Bible. (Unlike some
other heresies, which simply misinterpreted the Bible, Gnosticism’s cosmology
and theology was so far removed from anything biblical that they literally
needed to write their own scriptures, even if it meant forging them.]
Dualism is fundamental to Gnosticism. Dualism proceeds
naturally from an anti-cosmic worldview. If the natural realm is flawed, it is
clear that the true God could neither be its creator, nor could he be joined
with the physical world. Thus, Gnostics not only denied that the true God made
the world; they also denied the personal union of the divine and human natures
in Christ (i.e., that he was both God and man in one person). There were
many flavors of Gnosticism. Some Gnostics held that Christ wasn’t a man at all,
but that he only appeared to be human (a sort of phantasm); some held that he
wasn’t God at all, that he was only a man. Still others held that Jesus was a
man and that the “Christ Spirit” rested upon him only temporarily, but was
never joined to him personally (i.e., hypostatically—constituting a
singular person). In all cases, however, the Gnostics denied that Christ, as
God in the flesh, died on the cross. Actually, the Gnostics did not believe in
the absolute deity of Christ as taught in the New Testament. To the Gnostics,
Christ was a created heavenly being—not an eternal member of the Godhead. Since
the Gnostics did not accept the Bible’s teaching concerning original sin, they
saw no need for atonement; to them, the Son was a messenger from the spiritual
realm beyond and above that of the “God” of the Old Testament. He was a
messenger sent by the true God to reveal the knowledge of the truth (the gnosis)
to those capable of receiving it, that men have a spark of the divine within
them that, with the proper knowledge (the gnosis), can return to the
realm for which it was originally created. (The Gnostics believed that the soul
of man originated in a higher realm created by the true God, but became trapped
in the physical realm when the lower world was created by some of the creatures
emanated {directly or indirectly} from God.) Those who do not, or cannot
receive this knowledge are doomed to remain trapped in this physical realm
through perpetual reincarnations. Gnostic mythology, which denies that Christ
died on the cross, sometimes describes him as living out his life elsewhere,
but this mythology was not based upon any historical information. It was
developed only to support Gnostic dualism, which could not accept the
incarnation, or substitutionary atonement upon the cross.
The mythology that was developed by the Gnostics was rich
and varied. For instance, some Gnostics taught that Yahweh (or some of his
inferior powers) had relations with Eve and fathered Cain and Abel. (Some
Gnostic accounts present a picture of a brutal rape of Eve by one or more of
these powers.) There was a widespread
belief among Gnostics that only Seth was the son of Adam (or that only Seth was
born after the pattern of the ideal, or heavenly Seth—an ideal man in the
heavens), and they viewed only the descendants of Seth as being capable of
receiving the gnosis (the true knowledge that provides the keys to
passing the gatekeepers of the lower realms and ascending to the highest heaven
at death). Of course, Gnostics viewed themselves as being “Sethites.” (This is,
quite obviously, a form of religiously sanctioned racism.) They held that the tree
of life was a trap placed in the Garden by Yahweh to keep men trapped in the
material world, and that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil held the
means of escaping this entrapment. Consequently, the serpent that tempted Eve
to partake of the forbidden fruit was actually an agent of good—according to The
Secret Book of John, which presents a typical Gnostic account of creation.
(Interestingly, both Freemasonry and Mormonism incorporate the Gnostic idea
that an individual must possess certain secret knowledge to pass the gates of
the lower realms in order to ascend to the highest heaven upon death.)
One might ask why the Gnostics drew upon the Old Testament
at all, since their theology obviously doesn’t square with the Old Testament
Scriptures. The answer would seem to be that while they viewed the Old
Testament as having been written from the perspective of the false religion of
the Demiurge, it was still the foundation of Christianity of which they viewed
themselves as being a part. In other words, they were “stuck” with the Old
Testament. Christianity is inseparable from the Old Testament, and the Gnostics
needed a connection to Christianity to validate their own religious standing.
(Essentially, Gnosticism co-opted Christianity in its effort to forge a new
religion that was incompatible with both the Old and New Testament
Scriptures.) So rather than a complete
denial of the Old Testament, they chose to reinterpret selected portions of it
through allegorization according to their own mythology; the rest (in fact most
of the Old Testament), they simply dismissed as the false religion of the Jews.
(Actually some Gnostic sects did not include the Old Testament in their canon
of scriptures.)
Since the Gnostics viewed the God of the Old Testament as
inferior, and ignorantly self-serving, they viewed the Jews as purveyors of
false religion, which actually did harm by concealing the truth about the true
God and the true nature of the material world. Hence, Gnosticism fostered an
early anti-Jewish attitude. The futuristic eschatology of the Old Testament
(repeated in the book of Revelation), which was characterized as both physical
and Jewish-centered, was discarded in favor of “realized personal eschatology”
which the individual enters into both when he comes into possession of the gnosis,
and at death—when he can use the keys of gnosis to escape the physical
realm and return to the realm for which his soul was created. In fact, as the
notion of realized personal eschatology gained acceptance in the early church,
we see a diminished emphasis on physical resurrection. If the goal is to escape
the material realm, why would one want to be physically resurrected? The
Gnostics were the first within Christendom to teach that the resurrection
involves not the body, but the soul—hence a spiritual resurrection. This is a
theme that has been recycled and has found its way into modern liberal
Christianity. It seems more than coincidental that in the history of the church
the theological migration from a physical view of the resurrection to a
spiritual view has been the exclusive domain of amillennialists.
Of course, before we can conclusively establish a connection
between Platonism, Gnosticism, and amillennialism, we must ask the question,
“Was the Platonic and Gnostic influence in the second and third centuries
sufficient to account for the church’s abandonment of premillennialism? The answer to that question is, “Yes.” The
fingerprints of Platonism and Gnosticism are on most of the theological
disputation of that era. Valentinus, one of the most influential shapers of the
Gnostic movement, was nominated to be the Bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 143) and only
narrowly missed being elected. Even after his defeat he continued to exert
significant influence both locally and abroad until his death sometime around
A.D. 160. Many of the early church fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus argued powerfully against the
Gnostics and eventually the church rejected Gnosticism in most of its forms.
However, in the process of refuting the Gnostics, many of the apologists
adopted the Greek philosophical mode of apologetics. (Perhaps they were trying
to “fight fire with fire.”) This is most clearly illustrated in Clement of
Alexandria and Origen. While the particulars of Gnostic doctrines were being
refuted, the church was unwittingly buying into the same error that produced
Gnosticism—the supplanting of biblical revelation by philosophy. In the end
Gnosticism lost out, but the collision of Platonic ideas (from both philosophic
and religious sources) with Christianity left a huge dent in the church—a
decidedly Greek mindset which was both anti-cosmic, and sadly, anti-Jewish.
That mindset, of which Augustine was the inheritor, undoubtedly affected not
only the church’s attitude toward the nature of the kingdom of God, but also
set the stage for asceticism, the monastic movement, and the anti-Semitism of
the middle ages and beyond. The original biblical conception of the kingdom
developed in the Old Testament had been for a physical (geopolitical)
Jewish-centered kingdom with Messiah physically present to rule. Whether the
church thought that such a quaint, and geopolictically local notion wouldn’t
sell in the sophisticated Greek world, or whether the church simply bought into
the Platonic attitude toward the material world is unclear; likely it was a
combination of both, along with the growth of anti-Semitism. In any case,
Christianity’s encounter with Greek thought redefined the faith in an indelible
way that is still seen in the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, and
Reformed faiths.
Tracing the major movements of Platonic and Gnostic thought
within the early (2nd – 5th century) church, we will
begin with Philo, a Jewish philosopher and interpreter of the Old Testament who
lived in the 1st century A.D. (c. 20 B.C. – c. A.D.
40). Philo was one of the first Jewish interpreters to make extensive use of
allegorization in Old Testament interpretation (likely this was due to Stoic
influence; the Stoics were noted for their allegorization of Greek mythic
literature). Many early Christian interpreters were heavily influenced by
Philo’s method of “spiritualization”—that is, interpreting a passage according
to a supposed “spiritual” (i.e., supernatural) meaning (as opposed to
the actual meaning of the statements). While not holding strictly to a Platonic
cosmology, Philo’s cosmology was nonetheless heavily influenced by Platonism.
Philo, while viewing God as the framer of ideas (and necessarily transcendent),
viewed the material world as an expression of those ideas that existed more
perfectly in the heavenly realm. While not strictly Platonic (the Platonists
did not view God as transcendent), Philo’s concept of the nature of the
creation and its relationship to the realm of ideas certainly shows the
influence of Platonism, and may have served as the framework for early
Gnosticism. Philo lived in Alexandria Egypt, and Alexandria was the epicenter
of the revival of Greek philosophy in the first and second centuries A.D. It is
probably not coincidental that Philo, Valentinus, Basilides, Clement, and
Origin—five of the most influential figures that helped to ensconce allegorical
and anti-cosmic interpretation in the Church (though Philo was not a Christian)
all lived in Alexandria in the second century A.D., and there undoubtedly
interacted with both Platonism and Stoicism. It is also probably not
coincidental that the individuals in this string of figures, particularly Origen,
were a major influence in the development of Augustine’s hermeneutics—and as we
know, Augustine’s influence was the single greatest factor in the eventual
adoption of amillennialism in the western church.
Are there other connections between Platonism, Gnosticism,
and the early church? Absolutely—however, it’s not always easy to determine on
any particular issue whether Gnosticism was the principal influence, or whether
the philosophical “soup” of the 1st through the 4th
centuries simply affected both the church and Gnosticism to varying degrees.
Undoubtedly both forces were at work; that is, it is likely that both
philosophic Platonism and what might be termed “Christianized Platonism” (one
form of which was Gnosticism) both exerted an influence on the church.
Therefore rather than attempting to show causal connections, we will consider
common threads between Platonism, Gnosticism, and early amillennialism.
Consider the following. 1) The Gnostics denied any physical eschatological
promises. To them eschatology was about escaping the physical realm; that is so
say, they believed in a “personal realized eschatology” which was entirely
spiritual; and they simply reinterpreted (via allegorization) any
Scripture that did not fit their model.
Amillennialism, both historic and modern, is built on this same
framework. 2) The Gnostics dismissed the centrality of the Jewish people
and nation, believing them to be deceived by the Demiurge, and purveyors of
false religion; thus they dismissed any promises to the Jewish people and
nation made in the Old Testament. [This is clearly illustrated in the Gospel of
Judas in which Jesus is seen to be laughing at the ignorance of the disciples,
because they had been deceived by Jewish religion. In this mythic gospel, Judas
is the only disciple who came to understand the truth about Jesus and his
mission.] The dismissal of the centrality of the Jewish people and nation in
eschatology was built on replacement theology, the origin of which is unclear,
though it was undoubtedly very early. (The tendency toward this error was
forcefully addressed by Paul in Romans chapter 11—adding support to the notion
that this was a very early deviation from apostolic Christianity.) Replacement
theology undoubtedly set the stage for amillennialism and for Christian
anti-Semitism from the Middle Ages forward. Whether Gnosticism promoted
anti-Semitism to the church broadly or was itself influenced by other forces
that influenced the church, is unclear. However, one thing is clear:
Gnosticism, amillennialism, anti-cosmic theology, replacement theology, and
anti-Semitism all developed in the same religious/philosophical “soup” at the
same time (i.e., the early post-apostolic era)—though it took longer for
amillennialism to gain popularity in the western branch of the church. 3) The Gnostics reinterpreted the Old
Testament (that is, the part they didn’t ignore) in light of the New Testament,
which they had already reinterpreted in the light of their cultic literature—some
of which is ironically now being referred to as “lost gospels,” implying a
level of validity to these documents of which they are entirely unworthy. The
re-interpretation of earlier writings on the basis of later writings has always
been, and continues to be a core process in amillennial hermeneutics (which
reverses the determinative/dependant relationship of the Old Testament to the
New Testament), and in this aspect Gnosticism and amillennialism have always
been close cousins. (Again, see “How the Amillennial Conception of the
Kingdom is Developed,” by the author). Amillennialists have always been
insistent that the Old Testament must be re-interpreted in light of the New
Testament, even if the normal (and obvious) meaning of the actual statements
must be denied in order to do so. 4) The decline of premillennialism in
the early church matches the expansion of Platonic influence in the church,
both geographically and historically. The expansion of Gnosticism was from
Alexandria Egypt, to Syrian Antioch, to Rome, then to the rest of the Empire.
Amillennialism followed the same route, and as far as can be determined
appeared at approximately the same times; thus, there is both a geographical
and historical connection between the two. 5) With its emersion into the
Greek world the church was under great pressure to repackage its fundamentally
Jewish-centered message and to present a version of Christianity that would be
palatable, even attractive to non-Jews. This pressure undoubtedly increased
after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 with the dispersal of the Jewish
people. The problem for the church of the 2nd through the 5th
centuries was: How does one proclaim a Jewish-center religion with future
promises of global Jewish ascendancy, to a Greek world that viewed itself as
vastly superior to anything Jewish (particularly after the Jewish state had
ceased to exist)? In the end, when faced with retaining its original message or
morphing its theology into something more palatable to appeal to non-Jews, the
church chose the later path. Unfortunately, the message of the Bible had to be
“updated” to accommodate such a change, and allegorization was the best (an
only) alternative to denying the received canon and rewriting scripture as the
Gnostics had done (and which ultimately proved to be the Gnostics’ undoing).
What happened in the early church in the 2nd through the 5th
centuries can perhaps best be explained in terms of Hegel’s dialectic—with
apostolic Christianity (which was premillennial) representing the thesis,
Platonism and Gnosticism (both anti-cosmic and anti-Semitic) representing the antithesis,
and amillennialism representing the synthesis.
Anyone familiar with the kingdom promises of the Old
Testament must confess that they were for a physical, earthly kingdom. The
notion of a spiritual kingdom must be injected backwards from a particularly
restrictive understanding (or rather, “misunderstanding”) of the New Testament
gospels. (See, “The Biblical Basis of Premillennialism,” and “How the
Amillennial Conception of the Kingdom is Developed,” by the author.) In
fact, it seems to have been a particularly Gnostic trait to think of the
relationship of the New Testament to the Old as analogous to that of the
spiritual realm to the physical realm. In other words, to the Gnostics the Old
Testament represented the theology of the physical realm (an inferior
theology), whereas the New Testament represented the theology of the spirit
realm (a superior theology). This is, of course, a low view of inspiration, and
calls into question the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments, since
the inspiration of the New Testament is based on its connection to and
consistency with the Old Testament. It is interesting that throughout the
history of the church amillennialism has continued to ply this same error of
reinterpreting (“spiritualizing”) the Old Testament in the light of the New
Testament. [There is a reason this practice is called “spiritualizing.” In
spiritualization the “earth-bound” (local, cultural, geopolitical) statements
of the Old Testament are reinterpreted in a higher, superior (universal,
spiritual) form. This is fundamentally the same view of the relationship of the
Old Testament to the New as seen in Gnosticism. The fact is that all forms of
allegorization, whether Jewish or Christian, devalue the literature allegorized
by implying that it is, at face value, conceptually inferior to the higher
standard against which it is being reinterpreted. One might argue that the New
Testament is superior to the Old; however, such an assessment would be
difficult to sustain since virtually all of the key points of the New Testament
were established by means of appeal to Old Testament authority, and logically
that to which one appeals for validation cannot itself be dependant upon the
thing being validated (a circular fallacy). In this case, the Old Testament is
clearly determinative and the New Testament is clearly dependent. By what logic
does one argue that a dependent proposition redefines a prior proposition upon
which it depends for its own validity? This is, of course, a classic
“boot-strapping” conundrum. Therefore the reinterpretation of the Old Testament
by means of the New Testament is patently absurd. Of course, owing to the
progressive nature of biblical revelation the New Testament does contain a more
complete picture of the divine program than that contained within the Old
Testament; however, the New Testament picture merely completes the picture
given in the Old Testament—it does not replace or alter that picture as
amillennialists incorrectly assert. While amillennialists have been intent on
finding examples of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament within the
New Testament, they have been unable to point to even one example. The New
Testament does make use of Old Testament material in constructing a pedagogical
allegory in Galatians 4:21-31; however, the use of Old Testament material to
construct an allegory for illustrative purposes, and the interpretation of Old
Testament material allegorically are two entirely different things. The fact
is, neither Christ, nor the New Testament writers ever interpreted the Old
Testament allegorically.]
There can be no doubt that the development of amillennial
thought, particularly in Augustine, was influenced by the dualism of Platonism
and Gnosticism. Augustine’s Platonic frame of reference is generally
acknowledged. As Simone Pétrement states, both Origen and Augustine were
“…profoundly influenced by Gnosticism and to a large extent incorporated it
into their doctrines” (A Separate God: the Origins and Teachings of
Gnosticism, p. 24). The denial of the doctrine of a literal, earthly
millennial kingdom is not the result of the discovery of a superior revelation
of truth in the New Testament leading to the true “spiritual” meaning (and
reinterpretation) of the kingdom theology of the Old Testament; the denial of a
literal, earthly millennium is largely the result of the infusion of pagan
anti-cosmic, and anti-Jewish worldviews that crept into the church in the early
centuries of its theological development, and has now been codified in Roman
Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, and Reformed theology. In the western church,
this was largely due to the influence of Augustine—who adopted many of the core
interpretations and key hermeneutical principles of Tichonius—a North African
Donatist who was the first to present an entirely allegorical interpretation of
the book of Revelation. (Tichonius’ principles of hermeneutics are presented in
Augustine’s City of God.)
Of course in speaking of Augustine, we must keep in mind the
political-religious context. Augustine’s City of God was written as a
defense of Christianity after the sacking of Rome (which occurred in A.D. 410).
Had Augustine then taken a premillennial stance, he would have exacerbated
Roman criticism of Christianity (by implying that Christ would eventually
overthrow even Rome in the establishment of his kingdom). Such an idea would
hardly have accomplished what Augustine desired in his attempt to conciliate
Romans to a more favorable view of Christianity. While Platonism, Gnosticism,
and replacement theology provided the philosophical and theological “soup” in
which amillennialism could develop, it was likely a combination of several
factors that led to the codification of amillennialism in the early church—the
early acceptance of replacement theology, the general acceptance of
philosophical apologetics and theology, the influence of Platonism, the desire
to make the Scriptures palatable to skeptical and philosophically minded
Greeks, a growing acceptance of anti-cosmic dualism within the church, and
concern over the negative criticism that likely would have resulted from taking
a premillennial stance.
It is important to recognize that amillennialism does not
represent the biblical view of the kingdom (if by “biblical” we mean what the
Bible actually says). It certainly was not the view of any biblical writer who
is allowed to speak for himself without having his words distorted (or
blatantly contradicted) by allegorical interpretation. The biblical view can
only be characterized as “premillennial”—with Christ establishing his kingdom
on earth at his return. Amillennialism is the result of taking an originally
and fundamentally Jewish kingdom theology, melting it down by denying its actual
statements, and recasting it in a Platonic mold in which the centrality of the
Jewish people and nation in the eschatological kingdom is denied through the
means of allegorical reinterpretation (which is nothing more than a denial of
the actual statements of Scripture).
The difficulty is that since amillennialism has been
ensconced in the church, both Catholic and Protestant, for over fifteen hundred
years, most theologians believe that in defending amillennialism they are
defending the truth. Indeed they are defending the “orthodox” position, insofar
as orthodoxy means, the “accepted” view. But the question shouldn’t be: “Is it
orthodox?” The question ought to be: “Is it biblical?” And that question can
best be answered by asking another question: “Can it be shown that any biblical
author, according to his own intent, taught that the kingdom is entirely
spiritual (or heavenly)?” The answer to that question is a resounding,
“No”—that’s why amillennialists, like the Gnostics before them, are forced to
allegorize future prophecy. The fact
that Jesus spoke of an immanent kingdom (spiritually present) does not deny the
physical aspect of the kingdom so well established from the Old Testament and
reaffirmed in the last book of the New Testament (in spite of recapitulation
interpretation of Revelation, which represents incredibly inept
exegesis—concerning which, again see “How the Amillennial Conception of the
Kingdom is Developed,” by the author). Anyone who gives serious
consideration to the kingdom promises must realize that a physical kingdom must
be preceded by spiritual renewal (a spiritual precursory aspect of the
kingdom), else who would inherit such a kingdom—the unredeemed and
unregenerated? Perhaps the problem is that for too long the church has thought
antithetically (i.e., if the kingdom is spiritual, it cannot be
physical), rather than synthetically (i.e., the kingdom obviously has
spiritual and physical dimensions, which are non-contradictory). Of course
another piece of the puzzle is anti-Semitism. Until the church is willing to
see the Jewish nation as preeminent in the kingdom, it can never acknowledge
premillennialism as the teaching of the Bible—and I suspect this is more of a
factor in the ongoing insistence on amillennialism than anyone cares to admit.
[The papers by the author
cited here are available without cost from The Biblical Reader at
www.biblicalreader.com.]
Copyright 2006, by Sam A.
Smith / Biblical Reader Communications
May be copied for
non-commercial, educational use only, subject to the following:
This notice must appear on all copies.
All other rights reserved.
The Non-Christian and
Anti-cosmic Roots of Amillennialism
Originally published January
2006, and updated August 2007
Available at:
www.BiblicalReader.com